PFAS Contamination: The Big Picture

Last month’s report has shown that the PFAS-in-drinking-water crisis is worse than previously reported, validating fears and concerns. Unfortunately, while PFAS chemistries have existed for almost a century, the urgency to understand the extent of PFAS on the environment and our lives has only occurred in the last twenty years. Here’s why the issue is a lot more concerning than initially thought.

Frontline Communities and PFAS

While the USGS report primarily focused on tap water, PFAS has also been found in bottled water. There's still minimal information on PFAS in bottled water. Despite this new information, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration lack urgency in establishing bottled water quality standards for PFAS.

In California, a drinking water source standard is called a 'response level,' which is used until a drinking water standard is established and says if a contaminant exceeds the response level. Suppose the drinking water source does exceed the contamination level. In that case, it must either be taken out of service, or the water provider must show they can bring down the contaminant to safer levels, which can be disastrous for communities. However, doing this can create a water security crisis, especially in frontline communities. An issue already impacting the Southeast Los Angeles community, where most drinking water wells contain high levels of PFAS, according to the California State Water Board's PFAS Map. Southeast Los Angeles depends on a blend of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water. Without reliable, safe groundwater, water purveyors in Southeast Los Angeles will have to rely even more on imported water to meet the Human Right to Water requirements.

Climate and Economic Concerns

Lake Mead provides water to the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada

As California's water resources shrink over time, water costs will increase. Given these compounding issues, the widespread PFAS contamination is becoming a health and economic crisis. The burden of imported water supplies is primarily reflected in customers' bills, which, for many, adds another hurdle to the existing burden of high water rates and bills, as highlighted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by advocates and experts alike. However, the State of California seems to be delaying action in communities such as Southeast Los Angeles because the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) process for PFOA and PFOS is already underway (as mentioned in our previous blog).

Unfortunately, as climate change continues to impact the health of local aquifers in Southern California, how much imported water we receive is set to change even more. This creates a more prominent issue for Southern California communities whose last defense for clean water is the same water providers impacted by water shortages and cuts. Necessary action is needed to adapt to 21st-century climate conditions, but the extensive PFAS contamination has created a ticking time bomb. With less water, higher water bills, and limited access to clean drinking water, we are heading toward disaster, especially in our frontline communities.

What’s Next

State and national leaders need to be bold in addressing this widespread issue. The compounding impacts of PFA water contamination directly result from policy failures and inadequate action to long-time concerns of unsafe, unclean water. It is essential to phase out PFAS chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives that are less toxic and break down faster to protect public health and our finite water resources.

Sections of the LA River weave through heavily industrial zones.

In addition, PFAS-related industries should be held accountable for environmental and health harm. The financial burden of contaminated water should not be placed on water customers who are not responsible for contaminating the water in the first place. Until a complete PFAS phase-out is reached in the United States, an extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy must be implemented for the PFAS industry. EPR policies hold a company accountable if its operations continue to create a health burden through financial means such as taxes or fees, which are reinvested into mitigation measures. An EPR policy for the PFAS industry could produce financial revenue to support a revolving fund or increase programs to support water providers' investment in the necessary infrastructure to meet future MCL requirements.

Recommendations

PFAS are being phased out, albeit slowly, but as seen in a Calafat study, the concentrations of PFAS in blood have decreased due to the banning some PFAS chemicals. Additionally, the State Water Board's Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program has developed criteria to identify community water systems at risk of failure. Meaning those at-risk water providers would be prioritized to protect public health. But more is needed. With the right strategies, PFAS can be addressed, and we can protect our health.

PSR-LA recommends the following to address PFAS in the Los Angeles area:

Complete phase-out of PFAS chemical use in California and Promote Innovation and Implementation of Safer Alternatives

PFAS do not break down in the environment or the body and are extremely costly to remove from soil and water. The Calafat study proved that even just the phase-out of the two most commonly used PFAS chemicals from manufacturing improved PFAS levels in Americans’ blood. But instead of moving towards full phaseout of PFAS, chemists developed shorter chain PFAS chemicals, which are just as problematic. It’s time to completely phase out PFAS from American manufacturing. Even stronger policies would be to completely end purchasing goods from other countries where PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, are still being used.

Extended Producer Responsibilities

Monitoring and removing PFAS is expensive, and currently, the costs fall onto taxpayers and water customers. Instead, PFAS manufacturers and industries that use PFAS as an ingredient in the production of other goods should be held accountable. We urge Legislators and the California regulatory agencies to develop an “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) for PFAS. An EPR for PFAS in California could require PFAS industries to either pay a fee based on either the total amount of PFAS present in their final product OR a fee on the total amount of PFAS sold. Collected fees could then be allocated to funds for monitoring and/or cleaning up PFAS in groundwater, PFAS removal technology investments, and other drinking water system investments necessary for water purveyors to protect Californians’ Human Right to Water. Providing reliable and flexible funding for California water purveyors can move forward with necessary investments to address PFAS in drinking water. This will become necessary once the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS are finalized. If funding is not in place once the MCLs are established, it is likely that small to medium-sized water purveyors will struggle to become and remain compliant.

Biomonitoring and Medical Monitoring

A community-focused and advised biomonitoring program to assess levels of PFAS in the blood may be necessary in Los Angeles County. PFAS chemicals have been detected at levels exceeding certain water comparison figures, which may be exposing community members, as well as the community’s most vulnerable populations, such as the immunocompromised, pregnant individuals, and children. Previous studies have looked at PFAS in blood on a national level, but perhaps a Los Angeles County-focused study may be necessary as there seems to be a higher presence of PFAS sources in the region, not to mention the other LA-based industries that use PFAS in the manufacture of other goods and have been excluded in existing datasets. Furthermore, such assessment(s) should also take a harder look at the occupational exposures of workers who may be exposed to PFAS.

Due to its widespread presence in our lives, Consumer Notice recently created a guide to PFAS to help educate others on the risks, where they can be found, and more. Please take a look:
https://www.consumernotice.org/environmental/water-contamination/pfas/
https://www.consumernotice.org/environmental/water-contamination/pfas/products/